I had a dumb argument about this earlier, but I've been thinking about it since. I know every circumstance is different. If you live 3 hours from the nearest store in the Australian Outback, it makes sense to keep a big supply of food on hand, but if you live in the suburbs across the street from a supermarket, maybe 2 or 3 days of food is the more economical approach.
We have a tiny refrigerator that holds about 3 days of produce. We buy it a the local market twice a week. On average, we have about $20 worth of food at home.
Here is my refrigerator with my baby shown for scale. http://ift.tt/2hTiVg1
I think the small refrigerator reduces waste. We don't have cash tied up in food stores and we don't have to worry about losing our stash of food if there is a power failure. It takes up less space and uses less electricity. On the downside, we have to shop twice a week, but it's all fresh, local produce, so our diet is very appealing and healthy.
Many people buy in bulk though. I know my grandparents were the most frugal people I know and they had a huge chest type freezer. They called it a deep freeze. You could put a whole cow carcass in there and they often did. I think it probably did save them money. I don't know if it saves money for people shopping at Costco.
The money tied up in appliances, the increased energy cost, more food waste, more floor space, maybe you have to buy a generator too in case the power fails, and of course the money spent on the food itself is unproductive, just locked up in food inventory.
I'm looking for an argument here. I'd accept that I may be wrong if I heard a good case for a bigger refrigerator/freezer.
Submitted January 04, 2017 at 11:48PM by dixiedownunder http://ift.tt/2iEmtBA financialindependence
No comments:
Post a Comment